The 19th was the day al-Jazeera
broadcast an audio tape purporting to be by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, and after analysis, it turned out to be him.
He said he and his people are making preparations for attacks in the United States, but he is offering a possible truce to
rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan - if we leave. We should save a lot of money and lives if we just went home. This was the first
time in more than a year he's said anything at all (the last time was December 2004), and this new tape was released just
after our airstrike in Pakistan - targeting his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and killing a good number of civilians (including
women and children). Well, the word now is we did get four leading al Qaeda figures and maybe one of them was al-Zawahri's
son-in-law. Close enough. But the word is this new tape was made in early December, so he's not commenting on that.

Curiously
Osama Bin Laden did an Oprah Winfrey thing. He recommended a book - "if you are sincere in your desire for peace and security,
we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read
the book The Rogue State."

That's by William Blum. He said the introduction of the book has this: "If I were
president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and
those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended." Unfortunately,
the Associated Press here reports that's actually from another book by Blum, Freeing The World To Death: Essays on the American Empire (2004).
Close enough.

Sales jumped.The author is happy, sort of.

BBC provides a full text of the message here, translated of course, including what this truce business is about, a "long-term truce with fair conditions that we adhere
to. ... Both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been
destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone
to those with influence and merchants of war in America."

The AP tapped Jeremy Bennie, a terrorism analyst for Jane's
Defense Weekly, who sad bin Laden appeared to be "playing the peacemaker, the more statesmanlike character" with his
offer of a truce - "They want to promote the image that they can launch attacks if and when it suits them. They want us to
believe they are in control." They got a comment too from Richard Clarke, the former White House anti-terrorism chief who
ruffled so many feathers - "the initial significance of this (tape) is that he's still alive" but "the only new element in
his statement is that they are planning an attack soon on the United States." He adds, not helpfully, "Would he say that and
risk being proved wrong, if he can't pull it off in a month or so?"

Oh great. And this is only part of the message.
Al Jazeera only released the "newsworthy" part of what they say is a much longer message.

What prompted this from
Osama Bin Laden now? –

... what prompted me
to speak are the repeated fallacies of your President Bush in his comment on the outcome of the US opinion polls, which indicated
that the overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of the forces from Iraq, but he objected to this desire and said
that the withdrawal of troops would send a wrong message to the enemy.

Bush said: It is better to fight them on their
ground than they fighting us on our ground.

In my response to these fallacies, I say: The war in Iraq is raging, and
the operations in Afghanistan are on the rise in our favor...

He doesn't like logical
fallacies? He also mentions he doesn't think much of the plan to bomb the head office of al Jazeera in Qatar, after we bombed
the offices in Kabul and Baghdad. He doesn't like our taking wives and children hostage to get his guys to talk, and didn't
think much of our use of white phosphorous and all the rest. He's not happy. He suggests we agree to this truce or some really
bad things will happen here. But he gets his answer here - "Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed Osama bin Laden's offer of a truce today - calling it 'some kind of a ploy' - and
said it is not possible to sit down and negotiate a settlement with al Qaeda." Cheney is the final word. Bush was riding his
bicycle.

What to make of this new statement from Osama Bin Laden?

This is good for the administration. The
Evil One says "BOO!" and the Patriot Act gets made permanent and the whole wiretapping thing is forgiven, and the Republicans
sweep the mid-term elections. If nothing happens the administration claims what they do keeps us safe, and if something happens,
they claim we need them more than ever. Ah well. Over at Time Magazine we get this, it's just an internal turf war over there –

Despite directly addressing
Americans, its primary purpose may nonetheless be to remind Arab and Muslim audiences of his existence, and to reiterate his
claim to primacy among the Jihadists....

[I]n the year of Bin Laden's silence, he has begun to be supplanted as the
media face of global jihad by Musab al-Zarqawi, whose grisly exploits in Iraq grab headlines week after week. Not only that,
Zarqawi may even be running operations abroad.... Although Zarqawi two years ago swore an oath of loyalty to Bin Laden, he
is believed previously to have had something of a competitive relationship with the al-Qaeda leadership. And the public statements
attributed to Zarqawi and those of Ayman al-Zawahiri have been noticeably at odds over questions of beheading kidnap victims
and of wanton violence against Shiite Muslims. Zarqawi may have embraced the Qaeda brand with Bin Laden as its figurehead,
but his essentially autonomous field operation in Iraq has become the movement's center of gravity.

So it's jealousy. Here's
it's just blithering fear, the kind that drives out measured discourse and makes us all beg the administration to do anything
to keep us from dying.

Many of us are tired of being told to be afraid. And we want our country back - the one based
on some pretty good ideas. We think those ideas can win this thing.

__

Note:

Other news buried by
the Osama Bin Laden statement?

There's this (Reuters), from the land of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys - "France said on Thursday it would be ready to use nuclear
weapons against any state that carried out a terrorist attack against it, reaffirming the need for its nuclear deterrent."
Heads are exploding on the conservative right in America. Now what do we call those Freedom Fries?

In Baghdad, two
coordinated suicide bombings - in a crowded street and in a café - killed fifteen more people (see CNN here). But things are going well.

After not much of this recently, a suicide bomber messes up a whole lot of people in
the middle of Tel-Aviv, and as Knight-Ridder puts it dryly, Suicide Bombing Poses Challenge To Acting Israeli Prime Minister. No kidding. Ariel Sharon has not come out of his coma. He won't. Everyone knows that. Israel is "on hold" at the moment.
Who knows what to do?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 -
The Bush administration today offered its fullest defense of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program,
saying that congressional authorization to defeat Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attacks "places the president at the zenith
of his powers in authorizing the NSA activities."

Short form? He's allowed
to break the law. That's his job. (Discussed in more detail elsewhere in this issue...)

From Ric in Paris –

From his zenith the only
way is downhill. Yeah, it means he has gotten as high as he's ever going to get.

I do like this new policy
of honest arguments from the White House. Used to be that they'd do bad things and lie, distort, and spin their way out. Now
they just suggest their critics are traitors helping the other side, respond to allegations of domestic spying by saying,
essentially, "damn right we're spying on you," open McCarthyesque investigations into whoever leaks their illegal secrets,
and justify their actions on the theory that the president can do as he damn well pleases. It's refreshing. And so's the paper,
which simply reprises arguments the Congressional Research Service report demolished weeks ago. Such a Focaultian willingness
to deny the authority of legal experts is a welcome display of postmodern thinking from an administration all too often trapped
in absolutes. As I said, refreshing.

As Ric says, we're losing
something here. And here, ace attorney and legal analyst, Dahlia Lithwick, explains what to expect when Judge Alito ascends to the Supreme Court -
an analysis of his rulings, his writings, his answers in the nomination hearings. Short form? The president's allowed to break
the law. That's his job.

And a new wrinkle here - "The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the US Supreme Court, has subpoenaed
Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine."

Logoff. Now.

Then
there's just odd news, like this - "VATICAN CITY, Vatican City (UPI) -- The official Vatican newspaper has published an article praising as 'correct' a recent
U.S. court decision that intelligent design is not science."

What? The judge in the Dover Pennsylvania case issues
a long, reasoned, clear, and even elegant ruling that you cannot teach "intelligent design" in science classes in public schools,
as it's not science. And the Vatican agrees? Darwin is just fine with them? That's is exactly what the full article reports.
Heads are exploding on the conservative right in America. The Catholic Church hates abortion, and they thought they could
convince this new pope to give up on his opposition to the death penalty and his opposition to wars. He's German, after all.
Now this? It's amusing.

And in the background the issue with Iran and its nuclear ambitions is still there.

What to do about Iran?
The mullahs seem intent on acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Everything they've been doing lately - enriching uranium, spinning
centrifuges, really just about anything they could do short of actual bomb production - is legally permitted under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (a serious problem with the NPT these days). The Bush administration is pushing the U.N. Security
Council to impose sanctions. But Russia and China would likely veto the motion, owing to the former's massive investment in
Iranian reactors and the latter's heavy dependence on Iranian oil. The entire industrialized world is leery of economic confrontation
for this same reason; Western Europe and Japan get 10 percent to 15 percent of their oil imports from Iran. As for a military
strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, two objections stand out, among several others: It would be very difficult (the facilities
are scattered, some buried deep underground), and it would be widely regarded as premature at best (even the most pessimistic
intelligence estimates don't foresee an Iranian bomb for at least a few years).

Still, it's too risky simply to shrug
and to hope for the best. Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has openly expansive ambitions across the Middle East,
not least to "wipe Israel off the face of the map." Some political scientists have argued that the spread of nuclear weapons
is a good thing, that it makes countries more responsible. Could anyone still argue that the theory, dubious enough in general,
applies to Iran? Maybe a nuclear Iran could be "deterred" or "contained," but even that's a gamble.

He goes on to say there's
just no good solution to the problem, and cites why, and asks his readers if they can think of anything. If you have any ideas
click on the link and write him.